|
|
Post by salarex on May 4, 2007 10:27:27 GMT
"I would be surprised if highland burns would recover anything like that quickly thanks to the steepness of terrain and shorter summer."
Surely the steep terrain and shorter summer (= greater rainfall) would help them to recover faster, as there is greater run off, rinsing it out faster. More difficult for the pollution to stay on the hills.
|
|
|
|
Post by sagecaster on May 4, 2007 13:03:20 GMT
"I would be surprised if highland burns would recover anything like that quickly thanks to the steepness of terrain and shorter summer." Surely the steep terrain and shorter summer (= greater rainfall) would help them to recover faster, as there is greater run off, rinsing it out faster. More difficult for the pollution to stay on the hills. We're talking about re-population by insect life here. Imagine a 3 mile burn that has 100% extinction of insect life, which is typically what you'd expect from pyrethroid. Insecticides are very potent but are virtually gone in an instant, so insects in a river would be perfectly safe a day or so after. Where are the insects going to come from to repopulate our dead burn? Blown up stream from down river or carried over by the wind from the neighbouring valley would be the only way. Think about it, common sense would suggest that what we should be doing is planting out fly life to go with our fry. |
|
|
|
Post by colliedog on May 4, 2007 15:00:15 GMT
The situation is definitely improving and more positive, but lets not take our eye off the ball and keep pressure on SEPA and the fishery boards to monitor fly life as well as parr densities. SEPA (and the River Purification Boards before them) have monitored invertebrate populations in rivers for many years as indicators of water quality and biodiversity. There are specific classifications based upon the species and densities found I believe. I'm not sure if this information is publicly available and if so if it is in a useful format but I would be surprised if the fishery boards weren't aware of it. CD |
|
|
|
Post by zephead on May 4, 2007 15:16:24 GMT
Re-joining the fray after a few days conference- arama in sunny Mancunia.
Rothes was a very very very good deal in comparison to recent £12k plus plus Tweed purchases but no-one would buy a beat from a purely commercial perspective at these yields if they intended to try to live out of the income stream-they are very serious big boys toys albeit I'd far rather be buying salmon beats for clients than shopping centres as the survey is much more fun!!
As for the Environment Agency Report-spite on the hoof and more jobsworthing from the white coat brigade as far as I and many PG fans are concerned.I'd believe them about as much as I'd take succour in a Defra announcement saying FMD will be over in a few days but good to see that attempts to socially engineer a dis-assembly of the British countryside in revenge for the miners strike has backfired judging by yesterdays polls.
Always surprised me that the Environment Agency haven't been told to implement more hatcheries as part of theme park countryside/diversification schemes farmers/landowners are supposed to espouse these days in order to provide for the average urban car born gawker and cragrats with a truly "rural experience"
As for a nearby hatchery,Kielder is about and hour away depending on which way you go but interesting remark on the DNA.
Is it ties for the dinner tomorrow night by the way??
Off to the buffet car for more claret.................
DTYS!
ZH
|
|
